http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHIV DASS & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT.  DEVKI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 658 JT 1995 (3)   577  1995 SCALE  (2)562

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   This  appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment of the single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court  made in  RSA  295/68 dated 14.2.78. The property belongs  to  one Mela  Ram  who left behind him his mother-Radha.   The  suit property consists of -               (a)   One pacca 2 and 3 storeyed house bounded               on  the North: Shop of Abanshi Ram  previously               of  Vir  Bhar, on the South:  Khola  of  Nanak               Singh  and  others  on East:  House  of  Nanak               Singh,  on the West: Kucha Sarbasta and  house               of  Harnam  Singh and others as shown  in  the               plan filed herewith by letters ABCDEFG,  situ-               ated  in  village  Kahnuwan,  Teh.  &   Distt.               Gurdaspur.               (b)   One  pacca shop with verandha and  Thara               bounded as follow:-               North:     Thoroughfare, South: Shop of  Sohan               Lal  previously  of Lal Singh, East:  Shop  of               Shri  Mulk Raj previously of Mohan Lal,  West:               Shop  of Hukum Chand previously of Shri  Durga               Dass  shown  in  the  map  filed  herewith  by               letters  ABCD  situated in  village  Kahnuwan,               Tehsil and Distt.  Gurdaspur.               (c)   One pacca shop bounded on the North:    Thara               building  on the South: thoroughfare.  On  the               East:  Shop of Chajju Ram previously  of  Nand               Lal,  West:  Shop  of Sat  Pal  previously  of               Bishan Dass situated in the village  Kahnuwan,               Tehsil and Distt.  Gurdaspur.               (d)   Land  measuring  123  kanals  15  marlas               situated in village Chak Yaqub as given in the               Jamabandi  for  1959-60 which  copy  is  filed               herewith; khata No. 1, 2, 13, 19, 16, 3, 4, 8,               7,  18, 11, 12, 119, 120, 122, 111, 125,  124,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

             123,  116,  117,  Khatoni Nos.  1,2,  14,  20,               19,4,5,9,8,19,IZI3,124,125,127,116,130,129,128,               121, 122, Rect. 19 Killa No.20/2 Rect.  No. 40               Kila  No.  20 Rect.  Nil Killa No.  3/3  Rect.               No.4, Kila Nos. 17, 24, 25, Rect.  No.20  Kila               Nos.9/2, 12 Rect No.31 Killa Nos. 1 1/2, 12/1,               19/2, Rect Nos.40 Killa Nos. 22/2, 23/1,  Rect               No.42  Killa No.3/1 Rect No.30 Killa  No.  1/4               Rect.   No.20 Killa No.15/3, Rect  No.30  Kill               NO.  1/3 Rect.  No. 19 Killa No. II/ 1,  Rect.               No.20,  Killas  No.  15/4  Rect.No.30   Killas               No.1/2,  11/2,  1/2.3 Rect No.17  Killas  Nos.               4/2,  Rect.No.24,  Killas  No.2/1  Rect  No.40               Killas  Nos.  19/3, 22/3, 42/2,  Rect.   No.41               Killas  No.6/2, Rect No.20, Killas Nos.  13/2,               14/1,  17/4, 18/4, Rect No.20 Killa No.  13/1,               Khasra Nos.118, 1015, 430, 743, 881,  situated               in  village  Chak Yaqub  Tehsil  Gurdaspur  as               entered in Jamabandi 1959-60.               (e)   Land measuring 27 kanals 9 marlas  Khata               No.6,  18, Khatauni Nos. 12, 39 Rect.  No.  24               Killas  Nos. 15, 16, 5,6, situated in  village               Daowal,  Teh. & Distt Gurdaspur as entered  in               Jamabandi 1959-60. 2.   Radha,  by  a  deed of gift dated  February  28,  1922, gifted  the property items 1,2 & 3 to her grand son by  name Shiv  Dass, the appellant herein, son of Durga Devi, one  of the  two daughters of Radha.  She also bequeathed item  No.4 by a will Ex.D-2. It would appear that the 579 collaterals  had challenged the gift which was the  subject- matter  of the decision of the Division Bench of the  Lahore High  Court  in Shiv Das v. Nand Lal, AIR 1932  Lahore  361. The  High  Court  held  that  grand  son  of  Radha  had   a preferential  claim  over the collaterals as  a  reversioner and,  therefore, by operation of Punjab Act 2 of 1929,  gift of the property to him was held to be valid. 3.   It would appear that mother of Shiv Dass died in  1924. Radha died on December 21, 1960.  Devki Devi, other daughter of Radha, filed the suit for declaration on March 12,  1965, that  the gift deed dated February 28, 1922 was invalid  and inoperative;  so  were the alienations made  by  Shiv  Dass, which did not bind her.  The trial court decreed the suit in 1967.  On appeal, the Addl.  District Judge, by judgment and decree dated 3.2.68, affirmed the decree of the trial  court and  dismissed both the appeals of the appellant as also  of Devki  Devi.   The second appeal was dismissed.   Thus  this appeal by special leave. 4.   Shri  S.M.  Ashri, learned counsel  appearing  for  the respondents,  raised a preliminary objection that  the  suit had abated as against Devki Devi and, therefore, this appeal had stood dismissed on that ground.  We find no force in the contention.   It Is now clear from the record that the  High Court  heard the second appeal on 4.1.78 and  delivered  the judgment  on 14.2.78. In the meanwhile, Devki Devi  died  in January 1978.  The special leave petition was filed in  this court  on  13.3.78. The only question would be  whether  the appeal  was properly laid.  It is now settled law that  when one  of  the parties dies, after the appeal  was  heard  but before  the  judgment was pronounced, the  aggrieved  person need  not file an application in the High Court under  Order 22  Rule  3  or  4  CPC  to  bring  on  record’  the   legal representatives of the deceased-appellant or respondent,  as the   case   may   be.   It  is  enough   that   the   legal representatives  of  the deceased party  are  impleadcd  co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

nomince  in  the  appeal  filed  against  the  judgment   to represent  the estate of the deceased  respondcnt/appellant. Though  the  appellants did not implead in  the  appeal  the legal  representatives of Devki Devi as  party  respondents, since admittedly, the respondents did make an application in this  court to bring them on record as heirs of  Devki  Devi and  on April 6,1979, the application was allowed,  whatever initial defect that crept in laying the appeal, the same got cured  by  an  order of this Court at the  instance  of  the respondents.   In that view, the question of abatement  does not  arise.  The appeal, therefore, was validly laid in  the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of this case. 5.   It  is contended by Shri V.K. Mahajan,  learned  senior counsel, that since Radha died on 21.12.60, by operation  of s. 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (for short, ’the Act’), she  became  absolute owner of the properties.   She  having died intestate after the Act came into force, appellant-Shiv Dass  has  become  class ’A’ heir of his  mother  and  that, therefore,  he  is entitled to half share in  the  property. This  contention  is not totally correct.  It Is  seen  that when  the Act came into force, she was not in possession  of the  property.   Therefore,  s.  14(1) of  the  Act  is  not attracted and she did not become absolute owner.  As she did not die intestate, s. 1 5 of the Act cannot be applied. 6.   The crucial question is whether 580 Devki Devi is entitled to challenge the gift and bequest  by will made by Radha in favour of Shiv Dass.  It is seen  that Radha  is only limited owner and is entitled only  to  enjoy the   properties  during  her  life-time.   Therefore,   any alienation or gift of the property or will made by Radha  to anybody even to her grand son, arc invalid, inoperative  and do not bind the reversioners or the legal representatives of Mela Ram.  The succession stood opened in 1923 when Mela Ram died.   Durgi Devi and Devki Devi are sisters of  Mela  Ram. Therefore,  they  are  nearer in degree to  Shiv  Dass,  the grand-son  of  Radha.  Though the rights of  Shiv  Dass  qua collaterals were upheld in Shiv Dass v. Nand Lai (supra)  by the  Division Bench, that does not have any bearing  on  the rights  of Devki Devi, since Durga Devi and Devki  Devi  are entitled to the estate left by their brother Mela Ram.  Then both of them are entitled to succeed the estate of Mela  Ram in  equal moiety.  Devki Devi and her legal  representatives are  entitled  to half the estate left by Mela Ram  and  any alienation  made  by  either Radha by her will  or  gift  or alienation  by Shiv Dass or anybody by derivative title  arc invalid,  inoperative  and do not bind Devki  Devi  and  the respondents in the appeal. 7.   The decree of the trial court is accordingly  confirmed and  the  same  may  be  treated  as  a  preliminary  decree declaring  the  rights of the par-ties.  On  an  application made  to it, it would proceed further in the matter to  pass final decree.  If properties in excess of the half share  of the  respondents stood alienated, the respondents  would  be entitled to recover possession of the properties allotted to their  share, from the purchasers with mesne  profits.   The alienated properties should, however, as far as possible, be allotted  to  the share of the appellant to  the  extent  of their half share. 8.   The   appeal   is  accordingly  disposed  of   In   the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. 645